The goal of the study was to assess changes in parameters based on ultrasound examinations—these were Crown Rump Length (CRL), Nuchal Translucency (NT), Fetal Heart Rate (FHR), and Pulsatility Index for Ductus Venosus (DV-PI)—in the first trimester of pregnancy in women in which there was a natural initiation of the pregnancy due to spontaneous ovulation, women in which the pregnancy was initiated as a result of stimulated ovulation, as well as in the group in which pregnancy was achieved through the use of In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF)-assisted reproduction. A total of 1581 women became pregnant without the use of assisted reproduction methods. Out of 283 pregnancies, in 178 patients, induced ovulation was utilized. Next, 137 women had sexual intercourse and became pregnant; 41 of them became pregnant through Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) as a result of Artificial Insemination by Husband (AIH), and 13 became pregnant after Artificial Insemination by Donor (AID). The third group consisted of 105 women subjected to Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation (COH). In this group of pregnant women, 53 pregnancies were resultant of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), and 52 pregnancies were the result of Intracytoplasmic Morphologically selected Sperm Injection (IMSI). The obtained results did not indicate that the chosen method of fertilization or the chosen ovulation method had a statistically significant effect on the development risk of congenital heart or non-heart defects in the fetus.
Fertility problems constitute a serious medical, social, and demographic problem. With this review, we aim to critically appraise and evaluate the existing literature surrounding the risk of birth defects in offspring conceived using techniques based on assisted reproductive technology (ART). Based on searches of the literature in PubMed and ScienceDirect, we obtained a total of 2,003,275 works related to the topic. Ultimately, 11 original papers published in the last 10 years qualified for inclusion in the study. Based on five studies included in this analysis, it was shown that ART significantly increases the risk of congenital malformations in associated newborns. Due to the specifics of given studies, as well as potential confounding risk factors, this influence cannot be ignored. Therefore, considering the information contained in the articles included in this systematic review, it was determined that the risk of birth defects is not directly related to the use of ART itself but also depends on the age of partners, causes of infertility, comorbidities, and the number of fetuses during a pregnancy, as well as many other factors not covered in the literature. It is thus necessary to impress upon infertile couples who wish to have offspring that the use of ART is not risk-free but that the benefits outweigh the risks. Further education in this field, as well as social understanding, is also required.
Objectives: Trisomy 21 is one of the most common chromosomal defects diagnosed prenatally. Screening for Down syndrome is based on maternal age, measurement of crown-rump length, nuchal translucency and fetal heart rate, together with free β-hCG and PAPP-A at 11 to 13 + 6 weeks. Introduction of additional ultrasound marker of trisomy 21 (evaluation of the nasal bone) may result in increased DR and decreased invasive diagnostic testing rates (FPR). Material and methods:Ultrasound scan with NB evaluation was performed in 5814 fetuses during routine screening for chromosomal defects at 11 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. DR and FPR coefficients were calculated for 4 levels of risk as cut-off points for screening model 1, based on MA, NT, and first trimester biochemistry, as well as for screening model 2, based on MA, NT, first trimester biochemistry and NB.Results: There were 5708 normal cases, 71 cases of trisomy 21 and 35 cases of other chromosomal defects. NB was absent in 46 (64.8%) cases and present in 25 (35.3%) cases of trisomy 21, comparing to present NB in 5463 (95.7%) and absent in 245 (4.3%) of normal cases. Conclusions:First-semester screening with additional NB assessment significantly increases the detection rate for trisomy 21 and decreases the rate of false-positive results. Adding NB evaluation at the risk level of 1:50 causes only a small increase in detection rate. Invasive procedures should be performed in that group regardless NB assessment.
Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare effects of addition of two methods of ductus venosus (DV) flow assessment: qualitative -the assessment of shape of the A-wave (positive or negative), and quantitative -based on the pulsatility index for veins (DVPI) to the basic screening for trisomy 21 at 11 to 13 + 6 weeks of pregnancy. Material and methods:The ultrasound examination was performed in 8230 fetuses in singleton pregnancies at 11--13 + 6 wks, as a part of a routine screening for chromosomal defects. In DV A-wave was assessed and DVPI was calculated. After the scan blood sample was taken for first trimester biochemistry (BC). Risk for chromosomal defects was calculated and high-risk patients were offered an invasive test for karyotyping.Results: Basic screening with following combination of markers: MA, NT and BC provided lowest detection rate (DR) 87.50% for FPR = 6.94%. After adding qualitative DV A-wave assessment DR increased to 88.75% for FPR = 5.65%. The best DR = 93.75% for FPR = 5.55% was achieved when quantitative DVPI was added. The application of the Receiver Operating Curves curve confirmed validity of the addition of DV flow assessment to the screening model. The highest diagnostic power of the test was achieved when DVPI was added, with the ROC AUC of 0.974. Conclusions:The assessment of DV flow performed at 11-13 + 6 weeks increases DR for trisomy 21 and reduces FPR. The screening model based on the quantitative DV flow analysis (DVPI) gives better results compared to the qualitative flow assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.